The Murder of Americans-Existence of Secret Kill Lists Now Admitted by Lawless White House.doc

7/29/2019 The Murder of Americans-Existence of Secret Kill Lists Now Admitted by Lawless White House.doc

1/50

The Murder of Americans: Existence of Secret

Kill Lists Now Admitted by Lawless White HouseOctober 11th 2011

You know things are bad in the realm of tyranny when even Reuters runs a story that admitsthe White House openly engages in the outright murder of U.S. citizens whom the WhiteHouse deems "enemies." In an article entitled, Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list",

Reuters reported:

"American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretivepanel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions,according to officials. There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel,which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and formerofficials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules bywhich it is supposed to operate."(http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...)

If that sounds like a report you'd usually read on Natural News or InfoWars.com, that'sbecause we're usually the first to report on true conspiracies that exist in the corrupt, criminal

government running rampant across America today. But this particular assassinationconspiracy was so outrageous -- and so illegal-- that even Reuters had to cover it (to theircredit, by the way).

The existence of this secret "kill list" means the U.S. government can now decide, completelyoutside of law, to brazenly murder any person it wishes. And this is all apparently A-OK withPresident Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner!

I wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize committee will considerrevokingits peace prize from arecipient who now operates as part of a secret "kill list" murder squad. If not, then we ought to

just rename the whole thing the Nobel Murder Prize, huh?

Orwell said it best: Waris peace!Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength...

ABC News even went to bat on this issue

Reuters wasn't alone, by the way, in questioning the White House justification for this murder.ABC News Reporter Jake Tapper also had some hard-hitting questions for White House PressSecretary Jay Carney about the legal justification (ha!) for this killing of an American-bornman.

1
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005


2/50

Watch the jaw-dropping exchange between Jake Tapper and Jay Carney in the following videolink. This will give you a deep (and disturbing) understanding of the astonishing lawlessnessthat has taken hold in America, where the termdue processmeans absolutely nothing and thePresident's men can now simply order the murder of anyone he wants, for any reason, withoutpresenting even a shred of evidence to support such actions:

http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=1E3C8...

The full transcript of this exchange is found below.

The quagmire of murderous government

How many laws and rights has President Obama violated in this executive murder of anAmerican citizen?

Let's see: There are federal laws against murder. There are two amendments in the Bill ofRights that protect due process. There is an executive order on the books banningassassinations. Plus, there's is God's law (or natural law) under which the unjustified murderof another human being is a severe violation.

But the Obama administration says murder is right only as long as the U.S. government doesit. This is equivalent to arguing that the King's word is law because the King says it is, whichimplies that the King is gifted some supernatural authority which the People themselves donot possess. And that stands in complete violation of the very founding principles of ournation which exists on the commonsense premise that All Men Are Created Equal -- i.e. thereis no "King" among us whose actions or intentions are immune from the scrutiny of law.

Don't misunderstand me in all this: I'm not saying the target of all this -- Anwar al-Awlaki -- isinnocent. But the point is that we don't really KNOW who is innocent or guiltyuntil evidence ispresented and a person has their day in court. One of the most fundamental principles ofCommon Law is that those accused of crimes may face their accusers and see the evidence

presented against them. This is guaranteed under U.S. law as well as the Bill of Rights.YetPresident Obama who has also seen fit to continue Bush's torture regime at Gitmo apparentlybelieves all those laws and rights do not apply to the government itself. The King again,remember?

Friends, this is the very definition of tyranny. You are staring it in the face. Secret kill lists?Really? Why not just roll in the Stasi secret police or Nazi SS? This is how it starts: First thekilling is "only" for real enemies. And then it's for political enemies. Then it's for journalists,entrepreneurs and academics... until you end up with a total police state tyranny where thegovernment itself is held back by nothing other than the whims and fetishes of its own tyrantswho operate under the delusion that they are granted power over the common people by God

himself. This is what all kings and tyrants throughout world history have believed, by the way.

Jake Tapper from ABC News stood up to Carney over all this. That's why he asked thesepointed questions which Jay Carney flippantly dismissed, almost as if to say, "How dare theslaves ask their King to explain his actions!"

2
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=1E3C8FBEAFD167D8F97A8ADBE8F2E451http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=1E3C8FBEAFD167D8F97A8ADBE8F2E451


3/50

We are about to lose the Republic to total tyranny

That's where things are in America today: Your rights have been overrun. The laws that wereonce meticulouslyconstructed to place limits on the government itself have been utterlyabandoned by that government even as the complacent People watched and did nothing forfar too long.

Tyrants in the government today now run surveillance on raw milk distribution centers(http://www.naturalnews.com/033822_K...), threaten home gardeners with prison time

(http://www.naturalnews.com/032960_J...) and bring guns to the front steps of innocent momsto force their children to take psychiatric medications(http://www.naturalnews.com/032091_M...). Government now murders Americans using secretkill lists, and then does not even feel it has any obligation whatsoever to present any evidenceat all supporting its actions!

If there are no limits on this government power, and the government itself willfully violates thelaw at every opportunity, then where do you suppose this is all headed? It can only end withthe total concentration of power into the hands of tyrants. If you disagree with that, I ask you:What will stop that from happening?Huh? What will stop it?

The zombies in Atlanta sure won't stop it. They're too engaged in their hypnotic collectivistchant to think for themselves (http://www.naturalnews.com/033830_O...). The Democrats andRepublicans sure won't stop it. They all worship Big Government, after all, because that's fromwhere they both draw their power. And the executive branch of the government itself won'tstop it -- they're the ones who gain power from all this tyranny!

There is no one who can stop this other that We the People, People who take to the streetsand resist tyranny, speak out against criminality in the government, and nip at the heels oftyrants at every opportunity.

Run the tyrants out of town, I say. Demand the restoration of our Republic, which means that

ALL MEN (and woman) must abide by the same laws and recognize the same rights of others.There are no exceptions to these rules. Those who violate them are operating outside the lawand are therefore criminals who should be arrested and prosecuted.

Mark my words, friends: If we allow our own government to run a secret kill list targeting"guilty" Americans, then it won't be long before we find ourselves on it.

There are times in history when the criminality of the government is so outrageous, and soinexcusable, that it is not merely the rightbut the dutyof the People to intervene and restorethe rule of law upon those who falsely believe they are above it.

Transcript of exchange between Jake Tapper and Jay Carney

See the video at:http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=1E3C8...

TAPPER: You said that Awlaki was demonstrably and provably involved in operations. Do youplan on demonstrating --

MR. CARNEY: I should step back. He is clearly -- I mean "provably" may be a legal term. I think

3
http://www.naturalnews.com/033822_Kelly_Sakir_Rawesome_Foods.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/032960_Julie_Bass_home_gardening.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/032091_Maryanne_Godboldo_gun_rights.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/033830_Occupy_Wall_Street_zombies.htmlhttp://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=1E3C8FBEAFD167D8F97A8ADBE8F2E451http://www.naturalnews.com/033822_Kelly_Sakir_Rawesome_Foods.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/032960_Julie_Bass_home_gardening.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/032091_Maryanne_Godboldo_gun_rights.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/033830_Occupy_Wall_Street_zombies.htmlhttp://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=1E3C8FBEAFD167D8F97A8ADBE8F2E451


4/50

it has been well established, and it has certainly been the position of this administration andthe previous administration that he is a leader in was a leader in AQAP; that AQAP was adefinite threat, was operational, planned and carried out terrorist attacks that, fortunately, didnot succeed, but were extremely serious including the ones specifically that I mentioned, interms of the would-be Christmas Day bombing in 2009 and the attempt to bomb numerouscargo planes headed for the United States. And he was obviously also an active recruiter of alQaeda terrorists. So I don't think anybody in the field would dispute any of those assertions.

TAPPER: You don't think anybody else in the government would dispute that?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I wouldnt know of any credible terrorist expert who would dispute the factthat he was a leader in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and that he was operationallyinvolved in terrorist attacks against American interests and citizens.

TAPPER: Do you plan on bringing before the public any proof of these charges?

MR. CARNEY: Again, the question makes us has embedded within it assumptions about thecircumstances of his death that Im just not going to address.

TAPPER: How on earth does it have I really don't understand. How does hes dead. You areasserting that he had operational control of the cargo plot and the Abdulmutallab plot. Hesnow dead. Can you tell us, or the American people r has a judge been shown...

MR. CARNEY: Well, again, Jake, Im not going to go any further than what Ive said about thecircumstances of his death and

TAPPER: I don't even understand how they're tied.

MR. CARNEY: -- the case against him, which, again, youre linking. And I think that...

TAPPER: You said that he was responsible for these things.

MR. CARNEY: Yes, but again

TAPPER: Is there going to be any evidence presented?

MR. CARNEY: I don't have anything for you on that.

TAPPER:Do you not see at all does the administration not see at all how a President assertingthat he has the right to kill an American citizen without due process, and that hes not going toeven explain why he thinks he has that right is troublesome to some people?

MR. CARNEY: I wasnt aware of any of those things that you said actually happening. And

again, Im not going to address the circumstances of Awlakis death. I think, again, it is animportant fact that this terrorist, who was actively plotting had plotted in the past, and wasactively plotting to attack Americans and American interests, is dead. But Im not going tofrom any angle discuss the circumstances of his death.

4


5/50

TAPPER: Do you know that the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU tried to getpermission to represent Awlaki? And his father had asked them to do that. But they needed toget permission from the Treasury Department so that they could challenge his being on thistargeted killing list. And the administration, the Obama administration refused to let themrepresent him, to not even he couldn't even have the ACLU representing him.

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would send those questions, or take those questions to Treasury orJustice. I don't have anything on that for you.

TAPPER: What do you think constitutional law professor Barack Obama would make of this?

MR. CARNEY: I think he spoke about it today.

Dictatorship: Obama subverts constitutional dueprocess, openly murders innocent American citizen

Probable cause, due process, trial by jury these are just a few of the many relics of the formerconstitutionalrepublic that used to exist in the United States of America. And the recent

Obama-prompted murder of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen suspected of "inspiring" terroristattacks, but who was never actually tried by a jury or officially ruled to have committed anycrime whatsoever, proves just how far down the path of tyranny that the supposed "land ofthe free" has descended.

According to the official government story, al-Awlaki was a key player in helping to plan andorganize various al-Qaeda terrorist attacks, including the infamous World Trade Center attackon 9/11, and the failed Christmas Day underwear bomber attack in 2009. The imam, whoallegedly preached many anti-American sermons to his followers when he was still alive, wasalso involved in being a "spiritual advisor" to alleged jihadists.

But as serious as all this activity truly is, al-Awlaki was still an American citizen, which meanshe is entitled to the same constitutional protections as any other American citizen. Thisincludes the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, for instance, which guarantees everyAmerican citizen protection against government abuse of authority in a legal procedure, andthe right to due process of law, neither of which al-Awlaki received.

Instead of taking al-Awlaki to trial and prosecuting him the proper way, the Obama-led USgovernment arbitrarily sent the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) last Friday to perform anair strike on al-Awlaki, who had been living in Yemen. The end result was the death of both al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, another man connected to al-Awlaki that CBS News says was "nottargeted directly."

Again, regardless of what al-Awlaki was suspected of doing, he was never tried in a court, andhe was never declared by a jury to have committed any crime. The US government simplydecided to murder him in cold blood, and has since refused to share any evidence with thepublic as to why such an action was necessary or legitimate.

5


6/50

White House admits that al-Awlaki's murder cannot be legally justified

At a recent press conference,ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tappergrilled White House press secretary Jay Carney on the al-Awlaki issue, repeatedly asking himto offer at least some evidence proving that al-Awlaki was at all involved, as the governmentclaims, in aiding terrorism, or some kind of legal justification for the man's murder.

Not only did a nervous Carney refuse to answer the question, but he even admitted that thegovernment cannot actually prove anything at all about al-Awlaki. Instead, Carney alleges that

"the position" of both the Obama administration and previous Bush administration that al-Awlaki is guilty is enough to warrant his death.

You can watch the shocking, four-minute clip of the discourse here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bg...

Never mind all that business about gathering evidence, presenting it before a court of law, anddetermining without a shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty. As long as governmentofficials hold the position that someone is guilty, then they automatically are in the NewAmerica.

Also, be sure to check out the video Should President Obama Go To Trial For Murder?Here:http://runronpaul.com/activism/shou...

The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can

Kill AmericansThe Department of Justice produced it prior to the assassination of Anwar al-

Awlaki. But they won't release it.

Outside the U.S. government, President Obama's order to kill American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process has proved controversial, with experts in law and warreachingdifferent conclusions. Inside the Obama Administration, however, disagreement wasapparently absent, or so say anonymous sources quoted by the Washington Post. "TheJustice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday,according to administration officials," the newspaperreported."The document was producedfollowing a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved seniorlawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing

Aulaqi, the officials said."

Isn't that interesting? Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target al-Awlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent theassassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize thestrike? It's secret. Classified. Information that the public isn't permitted to read, mull over, orchallenge.

6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bgwZGZiIohttp://runronpaul.com/activism/should-president-obama-go-to-trial-for-murder/http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/awlaki-illegal-or-legal/http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/awlaki-illegal-or-legal/http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aulaqi-killing-reignites-debate-on-limits-of-executive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_story.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bgwZGZiIohttp://runronpaul.com/activism/should-president-obama-go-to-trial-for-murder/http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/awlaki-illegal-or-legal/http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/awlaki-illegal-or-legal/http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aulaqi-killing-reignites-debate-on-limits-of-executive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_story.html


7/50

Why? What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret whatthey're asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn't a military secret. It isn't an instance ofprotecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view.This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress' post September 11authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting officialsecrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions without having to expose hisspecific reasoning to scrutiny. As the Postput it, "The administration officials refused todisclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they consideredany Fifth Amendment right to due process."

Obama hasn't just set a new precedent about killing Americans without due process. He hasdone so in a way that deliberately shields from public view the precise nature of the importantprecedent he has set. It's time for the president who promised to create "a White House that'smore transparent and accountable than anything we've seen before" to release the DOJmemo. As David Shiplerwrites, "The legal questions are far from clear-cut, and the countryneeds to have this difficult discussion." And then there's the fact that "a good many Obamasupporters thought that secret legal opinions by the Justice Department rationalizing tortureand domestic military arrests, for example had gone out the door along with the Bushadministration," he adds. "But now comes a momentous change in policy with seriousimplications for the Constitution's restraint on executive power, and Obama refuses to allowhis lawyers' arguments to be laid out on the table for the American public to examine." Whatdoesn't he want to get out?

Who Says You Can Kill Americans, Mr. President?January 18th 2013

By Vicki Divoll

We rarely agree with the New York Times, but the killing of Americans without a trial is a

dangerous precedent. Even if Obama is using this unconstitutional power to kill terrorists,it must be stopped.

PRESIDENT OBAMA has refused to tell Congress or the American people why he believes theConstitution gives, or fails to deny, him the authority to secretly target and kill Americancitizens who he suspects are involved in terrorist activities overseas. So far he has killed threethat we know of.

7
http://shiplerreport.blogspot.com/2011_10_01_archive.htmlhttp://shiplerreport.blogspot.com/2011_10_01_archive.html


8/50

Presidents had never before, to our knowledge, targeted specific Americans for militarystrikes. There are no court decisions that tell us if he is acting lawfully. Mr. Obama tells us notto worry, though, because his lawyers say it is fine, because experts guide the decisions andbecause his advisers have set up a careful process to help him decide whom he should kill.He must think we should be relieved.

The three Americans known to have been killed, in two drone strikes in Yemen in the fall of2011, are Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was born in New Mexico; Samir Khan, anaturalized American citizen who had lived in New York and North Carolina, and was killedalongside Mr. Awlaki; and, in a strike two weeks later, Mr. Awlakis 16-year-old son,Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in Colorado.

Most of us think these people were probably terrorists anyway. So the presidentsreassurances have been enough to keep criticism at an acceptable level for the White House.Democrats in Congress and in the press have only gingerly questioned the claims by aDemocratic president that he is right about the law and careful when he orders drone attackson our citizens. And Republicans, who favor aggressive national security powers for theexecutive branch, look forward to the day when one of their own can wield them again.

But a few of our representatives have spoken up sort of. Several months ago, Senator PatrickJ. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, began limplyrequesting the Department of Justice memorandums that justify the targeted killing program.At a committee hearing, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., reminded of the request,demurred and shared a rueful chuckle with the senator. Mr. Leahy did not want to be rude, itseems though some of us remember him being harder on former President George W. Bushsattorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, in 2005.

So, even though Congress has the absolute power under the Constitution to receive thesedocuments, the Democratic-controlled Senate has not fought this president to get them. If thesenators did, and the president held fast to his refusal, they could go to court and demandthem, and I believe they would win. Perhaps even better, they could skip getting the legalmemos and go right to the meat of the matter using oversight and perhaps legislating tocontrol the presidents killing powers. That isnt happening either.

Thank goodness we have another branch of government to step into the fray. It is the job ofthe federal courts to interpret the Constitution and laws, and thus to define the boundaries ofthe powers of the branches of government, including their own.

In reining in the branches, the courts have been toughest on themselves, however. A long lineof Supreme Court cases require that judges wait for cases to come to them. They can takecases only from plaintiffs who have a personal stake in the outcome; they cannot decidepolitical questions; they cannot rule on an issue not squarely before them.

Because of these and other limitations, no case has made it far enough in federal court for ajudge to rule on the merits of the basic constitutional questions at stake here. A pending casefiled in July by the families of the three dead Americans does raise Fourth and FifthAmendment challenges to the presidents killings of their relatives. We will see if the judgeagrees to consider the constitutional questions or dismisses the case, citing limitations on hisown power.

8
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/anwar_al_awlaki/index.htmlhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/samir_khan/index.htmlhttp://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/anwar_al_awlaki/index.htmlhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/samir_khan/index.html


9/50

In another case, decided two weeks ago, a federal judge in Manhattan, Colleen McMahon,ruled, grudgingly, that the American Civil Liberties Union and two New York Times reporterscould not get access, under the Freedom of Information Act, to classified legal memorandumsthat were relied on to justify the targeted killing program. In her opinion, she expressedserious reservations about the presidents interpretation of the constitutional questions. Butthe merits of the program were not before her, just access to the Justice Department memos,so her opinion was, in effect, nothing but an interesting read.

So at the moment, the legislature and the courts are flummoxed by, or dont care about, howor whether to take on this aggressive program. But Mr. Obama, a former constitutional lawprofessor, should know, of all people, what needs to be done. He was highly critical when Mr.Bush applied new constitutional theories to justify warrantless wiretapping and enhancedinterrogation. In his 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama demanded transparency, and after takingoffice, he released legal memos that the Bush administration had kept secret. Once the self-serving constitutional analysis that the Bush team had used was revealed, legal scholars fromacross the spectrum studied and denounced it.

While Mr. Obama has criticized his predecessor, he has also worried about his successors.Last fall, when the elections outcome was still in doubt, Mr. Obama talked about drone strikesin general and said Congress and the courts should in some manner rein in presidents byputting a legal architecture in place. His comments seemed to reflect concern that futurepresidents should perhaps not wield alone such awesome and unchecked power over life anddeath of anyone, not just Americans. Oddly, under current law, Congress and the courts areinvolved when presidents eavesdrop on Americans, detain them or harshly interrogate thembut not when they kill them.

It is not just the most recent president, this one and the next whom we need to worry aboutwhen it comes to improper exercise of power. It is every president. Mr. Obama shoulddeclassify and release, to Congress, the press and the public, documents that set forth thedetailed constitutional and statutory analysis he relies on for targeting and killing Americancitizens.

Perhaps Mr. Obama still believes that, in a democracy, the people have a right to know thelegal theories upon which the president executes his great powers. Certainly, we can hope so.After all, his interpretation might be wrong.

Vicki Divoll is a former general counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence andformer deputy legal adviser to the C.I.A.s Counterterrorism Center.

Related:

Secrecy of Memo on Drone Killing Is Upheld (January 3, 2013)

9
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/judge-rules-memo-on-targeted-killing-can-remain-secret.html?ref=opinionhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/judge-rules-memo-on-targeted-killing-can-remain-secret.html?ref=opinion


10/50

Obama DOJ: We Dont Need Clear EvidenceTo Kill Americans With Drones

February 5th 2013By Tim Brown

The condition that an operational leader present an imminent threat of violent attack againstthe United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specificattack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future, reads aconfidential Justice Department memo defending the U.S. governments ability to order thekilling of American citizens if they believe them to be senior operational leaders or anassociated force, even if they dont have any evidence that the person targeted is actuallyengaged in or plotting an attack on the US

All of the controversy stemmed from the September 2011 drone strike in Yemen that killedalleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who hadnever been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

The kill list was affirmed last year as then Obamas assassination czar, John Brennan, wasappointed. Now that same Brennan, who was a key architect in the drone campaign, has nowbeen appointed by Obama as the new head of the Central Intelligence Agency(CIA), followingDavid Petraeus resignation.

President Obama's Rules for Assassinating U.S. Citizenshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0UxrvTOpHb0

The memo states that no clear evidence of a specific attack on persons and interests isneeded, nor does the operational leader present an imminent threat of violent attack againstthe United States in order to be targeted for assassination by the Federal government.This conclusion is reached with recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethaloperation by the United States against a U.S. citizen, and also of the extraordinaryseriousness of the threat posed by senior operational al Qaeda members and the loss of lifethat would result were their operations successful, the memo reads.

It gets worse.

10
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfhttp://freedomoutpost.com/2012/05/barack-obama-appoints-first-ever-assassination-czar/http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/obama-appoints-his-assassination-czar-as-new-cia-head/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/breaking-cia-director-patraeus-resigns-over-adultery/http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0UxrvTOpHb0http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfhttp://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfhttp://freedomoutpost.com/2012/05/barack-obama-appoints-first-ever-assassination-czar/http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/obama-appoints-his-assassination-czar-as-new-cia-head/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/breaking-cia-director-patraeus-resigns-over-adultery/http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0UxrvTOpHb0http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf


11/50

Michael Isikoffpoints out the following:

As in Holders speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would maketargeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat,capture of the target must be infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to lawof war principles. But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyondwhat the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may considerwhether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an undue risk to U.S. personnelinvolved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operationof the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government toorder a killing instead, the memo concludes.

The undated memo is entitled Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S.Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qaida or An Associated Force. It wasprovided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June byadministration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and not discussedpublicly.

Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administrationofficials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos ontargeted killings by the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel, which providesauthoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. Theadministration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly or evenpublicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is notclassified, provided a copy to NBC News.

Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in aninterview with NBC said the document was chilling.

Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing ofan American citizen. It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits areelastic and vaguely defined, and its easy to see how they could be manipulated, Jaffer said.

Justin Sink recalls, In November, the New York Times reported that the White House wasworking to codify rules to govern the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones. Thecodification work was begun during last years presidential election. According to the report,the Obama administration wanted to provide Mitt Romney with a clear set of procedures andstandards for the use of drone strikes were he to be elected.

The president himself has spoken publicly about the need to better codify the use of dronestrikes, he writes.

One of the things weve got to do is put a legal architecture in place, he continued, and we

need Congressional help in order to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined in but anypresidents reined in terms of some of the decisions that were making, Obama said duringan appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart shortly before the election.

11
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?litehttp://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/281069-doj-white-paper-on-killer-drones-and-us-citizens-abroadhttp://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?litehttp://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/281069-doj-white-paper-on-killer-drones-and-us-citizens-abroad


12/50

There is something in place. Its called the Constitution, something Barack Obama andmembers of Congress swore to support and defend. Specifically its called the SixthAmendment that is being violated here. I realize that many people will scream aboutterrorists and all sorts of things, but the issue is that this administration and its thugpartners arealready definingthose who believe that the Federal government is too big for itsbritches and are overstepping their bounds as domestic terrorists.

Sadly, many Republicans like Representative Peter King (R-NY) who serves as the Chairmanof the House Homeland Security Committee calls Obamas kill list totally right and totallyconstitutional.

Additionally, our public education system is beginning the indoctrination of who is and is nota terrorist. The y are doing it by teaching that those that engaged in the Boston Tea Party wereterrorists. Even our own government training agents that the Founding Fathers wereterrorists.

In addition, I would like to point out the hypocrisy of those making the decisions to murderthose who have not engaged in any acts of terrorism nor have they been proven to actually beplotting attacks on the United States. These same people within the Obama administrationhave supplied aid to the organization they say they are opposed to in Libya and more thanlikely in Syria, yet they do not target themselves, do they? No, they hide behind executiveprivilege and government charades.

We dont see them coming clean on matters where they have put weapons in the hands ofMexican drug cartels that have resulted in the deaths of untold numbers of Mexicans and atleast two federal agents.

This is not just chilling, its unlawful. Its unconstitutional. Its a mockery of our Constitutionand before you say that you would never find yourself on the presidential hit list, perhapsyou should consider the open talk of assassination by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as hetold CBS 60 Minutes, If someone is a citizen of the United States and is a terrorist (Ill note, isnot proved to be a terrorist, just claimed to be one by the government) who wants to attackour people and kill Americans (again that would make a person a suspect and should beinnocent until proven guilty) in my book that person is a terrorist.

I point this out because Panetta openly claims that the Federal government can bypass theConstitution and just do whatever they want to American citizens. How long before they starttargeting State militia groups, true patriots, those that believe in the Second Amendment(contrary to Jesse Jacksons claims), and even those opposed to the Obamacare mandate?How long before those bitter clingers of religion and guns are targeted as terrorists? Thinkabout it.

12
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/federal-government-urged-to-patrol-citys-streets/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/10/obamas-kill-list-becomes-permanent-war-on-terror-centerpiece/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/republican-congressman-says-obamas-kill-list-is-constitutional/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/republican-congressman-says-obamas-kill-list-is-constitutional/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/texas-schools-now-teaching-boston-tea-party-was-act-of-terrorism-and-more/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/texas-schools-now-teaching-boston-tea-party-was-act-of-terrorism-and-more/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/feds-would-think-founding-fathers-were-terrorists/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/feds-would-think-founding-fathers-were-terrorists/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/02/are-you-on-the-governments-kill-list/http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/federal-government-urged-to-patrol-citys-streets/http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/federal-government-urged-to-patrol-citys-streets/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/10/obamas-kill-list-becomes-permanent-war-on-terror-centerpiece/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/republican-congressman-says-obamas-kill-list-is-constitutional/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/republican-congressman-says-obamas-kill-list-is-constitutional/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/texas-schools-now-teaching-boston-tea-party-was-act-of-terrorism-and-more/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/texas-schools-now-teaching-boston-tea-party-was-act-of-terrorism-and-more/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/feds-would-think-founding-fathers-were-terrorists/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/feds-would-think-founding-fathers-were-terrorists/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/02/are-you-on-the-governments-kill-list/http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/federal-government-urged-to-patrol-citys-streets/


13/50

Beware: A President who justifies secret drone

killings of Americans can justify anythingFebruary 5th 2013

The U.S. Justice Department has just released a 16-page memo outlining its justification forwhy President Obama can order drone killings of American citizens. The paper is a wild tourof bizarro-land justifications from a government that no longer abides by any Constitutionallimits or even principles of human rights.

As NBC News frighteningly reports:

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order thekilling of American citizens if they are believed to be "senior operational leaders" of al-Qaidaor "an associated force" even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in anactive plot to attack the U.S.

White House press secretary Jay Carney, the mouthpiece of tyranny and lawlessness inAmerica today, added that "These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise."(FreeBeacon.com)

Thus, the idea that an American citizen receives a trial by jury, a defense attorney, dueprocess of law and an ability to face his accusers is utterly thrown out the window. What thismemo essentially "legalizes" is the ability of the U.S. President to simply order the murder ofanyone he names. No law needs to be followed. No arguments offered. There does not evenneed to be a single shred of evidence that this person has violated any law whatsoever. Thedecision process takes place in total secrecy and is not subject to judicial review of any kind.

The President has become a dictator

There's no other way to say it: This is tyranny. A President who has the power to kill anyone

he wishes, completely outside of law and the Constitution, is a dictatorial tyrant. He is a"king." This is precisely the kind of thing our Founding Fathers fought against in breakingaway from the King of England. Our ancestors were fed up with secret trials, secretexecutions, secret court proceedings and suffering under the whims of one man whose powerwas completely unchecked.

"If you believe the president has the power to order U.S. citizens executed far from anybattlefield with no charges or trial, then its truly hard to conceive of any asserted power youwould find objectionable," writes constitutional lawyerGlenn Greenwald. He goes on toexplain:

13
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfhttp://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?litehttp://freebeacon.com/carney-drone-strikes-legal-ethical-wise/http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memohttp://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfhttp://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?litehttp://freebeacon.com/carney-drone-strikes-legal-ethical-wise/http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo


14/50

The memo isn't justifying the due-process-free execution of senior al-Qaida leaders who posean imminent threat to the US. It is justifying the due-process-free execution of people secretlyaccused by the presidentand his underlings, with no due process, of being that. Thedistinction between (a) government accusations and (b) proof of guilt is central to every freesociety, by definition, yet this memo - and those who defend Obama's assassination power -willfully ignore it.

This isn't even an Obama issue, by the way: it's an issue of the next President who comes topower, and the one after that. With this Justice Department memo, the office of the Presidentis being granted permanent power to order the killing of any person added to a list. Thispower is wildly unconstitutional and illegal, yet if it remains unopposed, it is a power that willbe retained by the office of the President and used by future Presidents.

As Greenwald writes:

During the early Bush years, the very idea that the US government asserted the power toimprison US citizens without charges and due process (or to eavesdrop on them) was soradical that, at the time, I could hardly believe they were being asserted out in the open.

Yet here we are almost a full decade later. And we have the current president asserting thepower not merely to imprison or eavesdrop on US citizens without charges or trial, but toorder them executed - and to do so in total secrecy, with no checks or oversight.

But all this isn't even the big story here. The bigger story is found in the title of this article: Ifthe Obama administration would justify drone killings of U.S. citizens, is there anything theycan't justify?

Every violation of law and the Constitution can be justified with a "legal memo"

I'm not sure where in the Constitution it says, "...unless a legal memo says otherwise." TheU.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights lay out immutable rules, limits and guidelines forgovernment. But when an oppressive government regime decides to utterly ignore theConstitution and the limits of power described therein, it becomes a dictatorial tyranny. Weare there now in America.

Consider this: If the Obama administration can justify the drone killing of Americans, it couldalso justify all the following actions:

The use of military troops on the streets of America (in violation of Posse Comitatus).

The rounding up and internment of American citizens (into FEMA camps).

The government seizure of all private retirement funds and IRAs. (This is coming soonduring the coming financial collapse.)

Government takeover of all farms, food, livestock and seeds. (This has already happened,actually. Click here for details.)

The "disappearing" of all political enemies, journalists and critics.

The arrest and imprisonment of all parents who do not vaccinate their children.

14
http://www.naturalnews.com/035301_Obama_executive_orders_food_supply.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/035301_Obama_executive_orders_food_supply.html


15/50

Government disarmament of the population; outlawing of all guns and ammo in the hands ofprivate citizens.

Nullification of states' rights and the rollout of an armed private "White House military" thatoccupies the streets of America.

Heck, in fact, a President who can justify drone killings of American citizens could alsojustifya return to slavery except this time, they'll make it white people!There's nothing the Obamaadministration can't justify if it's already justifying killing American citizens outside the rule oflaw.

The Bill of Rights was written precisely to stop this kind of tyranny

This is precisely why we need to adhere to the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment, forexample, was written precisely for this age when government is desperately trying to disarmthe citizens and create a monopoly of firepower in its own hands.

The Fifth Amendment was written precisely for this time when government has decided it nolonger needs to respect due process and can simply order the killing of anyone it wants, withno trial, no evidence presented and not even a court hearing.

The Tenth Amendment was written precisely for this time when the federal government issteamrolling states' rights and attempting to rule by force everywhere across the country.Every federal agency in existence today FDA, DEA, FTC, USDA, IRS, etc. operates in blatantviolation of the Tenth Amendment. (www.NullifyNow.com)

If we don't stop the office of the President from now claiming it has the right to selectivelymurder American citizens at the stroke of a pen, then we are not a nation of law; we are anation ruled by a tyrant king.

So now, America has become a nation of drone voters who are killed by drones as ordered bya Presidential puppet controlled by the globalist bankers. Does that sound about right?

15
http://www.naturalnews.com/038936_Jesse_Jackson_Chicago_murder_rate.htmlhttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/http://www.nullifynow.com/http://www.naturalnews.com/038936_Jesse_Jackson_Chicago_murder_rate.htmlhttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/http://www.nullifynow.com/


16/50

Justice Department Memo Reveals Legal Case for

Drone Strikes on AmericansFebruary 5th 2013By Michael Isikoff

A secretive memo from the Justice Department, provided to NBC News, provides new

information about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration's controversialpolicies. Now, John Brennan, Obama's nominee for CIA director, is expected to face toughquestions about drone strikes on Thursday when he appears before the Senate Intelligence

Committee. NBC's Michael Isikoff reports.

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order thekilling of American citizens if they are believed to be senior operational leaders of al-Qaidaor an associated force even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in anactive plot to attack the U.S.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about

the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administrations most secretive andcontroversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaidasuspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Bothwere U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with anycrimes.The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this weekshearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the dronecampaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publiclyacknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them consistent with the inherentright of self-defense. In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March,

Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings ofAmericans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target posesan imminent threat of violent attack.

But the confidential Justice Department white paper introduces a more expansive definitionof self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their publicspeeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a broader concept of imminence than actualintelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

16
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfhttp://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf


17/50

Michael Isikoff, national investigative correspondent for NBC News, talks with Rachel Maddowabout a newly obtained, confidential Department of Justice white paper that hints at thedetails of a secret White House memo that explains the legal justifications for targeted dronestrikes that kill Americans without trial in the name of national security.

The condition that an operational leader present an imminent threat of violent attackagainst the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that aspecific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future, thememo states.

Read the entire 'white paper' on drone strikes on Americans

Instead, it says, an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government may determine thatthe targeted American has been recently involved in activities posing a threat of a violentattack and there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned suchactivities. The memo does not define recently or activities.

As in Holders speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would maketargeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat,capture of the target must be infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to lawof war principles. But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyondwhat the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may considerwhether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an undue risk to U.S. personnelinvolved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operationof the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government toorder a killing instead, the memo concludes.

The undated memo is entitled Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S.Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qaida or An Associated Force. It wasprovided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June byadministration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and not discussedpublicly.

Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administrationofficials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos ontargeted killings by the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel, which providesauthoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. Theadministration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly or evenpublicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is notclassified, provided a copy to NBC News.

This is a chilling document, said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which issuing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans. Basically, it

argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an Americancitizen. It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic andvaguely defined, and its easy to see how they could be manipulated.

In particular, Jaffer said, the memo redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives theword of its ordinary meaning.

17
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfhttp://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf


18/50

Tribesmen this week examine the rubble of a building in southeastern Yemen where Americanteenager Abdulrahmen al-Awlaki and six suspected al-Qaida militants were killed in a U.S.drone strike on Oct. 14, 2011. Al-Awlaki, 16, was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who died in asimilar strike two weeks earlier.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the white paper. Thespokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, instead pointed to public speeches by what she called aparade of administration officials, including Brennan, Holder, former State Department LegaAdviser Harold Koh and former Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson that shesaid outlined the legal framework for such operations.

Pressure for turning over the Justice Department memos on targeted killings of Americansappears to be building on Capitol Hill amid signs that Brennan will be grilled on the subject athis confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

On Monday, a bipartisan group of 11 senators -- led by Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon wrotea letter to President Barack Obama asking him to release all Justice Department memos onthe subject. While accepting that there will clearly be circumstances in which the presidenthas the authority to use lethal force against Americans who take up arms against thecountry, it said, It is vitally important for Congress and the American public to have a fullunderstanding of how the executive branch interprets the limits and boundaries of thisauthority.

Anticipating domestic boom, colleges rev up drone piloting programs

The completeness of the administrations public accounts of its legal arguments was alsosharply criticized last month by U.S. Judge Colleen McMahon in response to a lawsuitbrought by the New York Times and the ACLU seeking access to the Justice Departmentmemos on drone strikes targeting Americans under the Freedom of Information Act.McMahon, describing herself as being caught in a veritable Catch-22, said she was unableto order the release of the documents given the thicket of laws and precedents thateffectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawfulcertain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws whilekeeping the reasons for the conclusion a secret.

In her ruling, McMahon noted that administration officials had engaged in public discussionof the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens. But, she wrote, they have done so incryptic and imprecise ways, generally without citing any statute or court decision that

justifies its conclusions.

In one passage in Holders speech at Northwestern in March, he alluded without spelling outthat there might be circumstances where the president might order attacks against Americancitizens without specific knowledge of when or where an attack against the U.S. might take

place.

The Constitution does not require the president to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning, when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear, hesaid.

18
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/29/16726198-anticipating-domestic-boom-colleges-rev-up-drone-piloting-programs?litehttp://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/29/16726198-anticipating-domestic-boom-colleges-rev-up-drone-piloting-programs?lite


19/50

But his speech did not contain the additional language in the white paper suggesting that noactive intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike. Similarly,Holder said in his speech that targeted killings of Americans can be justified if capture is notfeasible. But he did not include language in the white paper saying that an operation mightnot be feasible if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window ofopportunity or if the relevant country (where the target is located) were to decline to consentto a capture operation. The speech also made no reference to the risk that might be posed toU.S. forces seeking to capture a target, as was mentioned in the white paper.

The white paper also includes a more extensive discussion of why targeted strikes againstAmericans does not violate constitutional protections afforded American citizens as well as aU.S. law that criminalizes the killing of U.S. nationals overseas.

It also discusses why such targeted killings would not be a war crime or violate a U.S.executive order banning assassinations.

A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination, the white paper reads. In theDepartments view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct posesan imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act ofnational self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly, the use of lethalforce, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military targetwould be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.

Obama Gives Himself License to KillFebruary 7th 2013

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

After stonewalling for more than a year federal judges and ordinary citizens who sought therevelation of its secret legal research justifying the presidential use of drones to kill personsoverseas even Americans claiming the research was so sensitive and so secret that it couldnot be revealed without serious consequences, the government sent a summary of its legalmemos to an NBC newsroom earlier this week.

This revelation will come as a great surprise, and not a little annoyance, to U.S. District CourtJudge Colleen McMahon, who heard many hours of oral argument during which thegovernment predicted gloom and doom if its legal research were subjected to public scrutiny.She very reluctantly agreed with the feds, but told them she felt caught in a veritable Catch-

22, because the feds have created a thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow theexecutive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seemon their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for theirconclusion a secret.

She was writing about President Obama killing Americans and refusing to divulge the legalbasis for claiming the right to do so. Now we know that basis.

Did you consent to a government that can kill whom it wishes?

19


20/50

The undated and unsigned 16-page document leaked to NBC refers to itself as a Departmentof Justice white paper. Its logic is flawed, its premises are bereft of any appreciation for thevalues of the Declaration of Independence and the supremacy of the Constitution, and itsrationale could be used to justify any breaking of any law by any informed, high-level officialof the U.S. government.

The quoted phrase is extracted from the memo, which claims that the law reposes into thehands of any unnamed high-level official, not necessarily the president, the lawful power todecide when to suspend constitutional protections guaranteed to all persons and kill themwithout any due process whatsoever. This is the power claimed by kings and tyrants. It is thepower most repugnant to American values. It is the power we have arguably fought countlesswars to prevent from arriving here. Now, under Obama, it is here.

This came to a boiling point when Obama dispatched CIA drones to kill New Mexico-born andAl Qaeda-affiliated Anwar al-Awlaki while he was riding in a car in a desert in Yemen inSeptember 2011. A follow-up drone, also dispatched by Obama, killed Awlakis 16-year-oldColorado-born son and his American friend.

Awlakis American father sued the president in federal court in Washington, D.C., trying toprevent the killing. Justice Department lawyers persuaded a judge that the president alwaysfollows the law, and besides, without any evidence of presidential law breaking, the elderAwlaki had no case against the president. Within three months of that ruling, the presidentdispatched his drones and the Awlakis were dead. This spawned follow-up lawsuits, in one ofwhich McMahon gave her reluctant ruling.

Then the white paper appeared. It claims that if an American is likely to trigger the use of force10,000 miles from here, and he cant easily be arrested, he can be murdered with impunity.This notwithstanding state and federal laws that expressly prohibit non-judicial killing, anexecutive order signed by every president from Gerald Ford to Obama prohibiting Americanofficials from participating in assassinations, the absence of a declaration of war against

Yemen, treaties expressly prohibiting this type of killing, and the language of the Declaration,which guarantees the right to live, and the Constitution, which requires a jury trial before thegovernment can deny that right.

The president cannot lawfully order the killing of anyone, except according to the Constitutionand federal law. Under the Constitution, he can only order killing using the military when theU.S. has been attacked or when an attack is so imminent that delay would cost innocent lives.He can also order killing using the military in pursuit of a declaration of war enacted byCongress.

Unless Obama knows that an attack from Yemen on our shores is imminent, hed be hard-pressed to argue that a guy in a car in the desert 10,000 miles from here no matter hisintentions -- poses a threat so imminent to the U.S. that he needs to be killed on the spot in

order to save the lives of Americans who would surely die during the time it would take todeclare war on the country that harbors him, or during the time it would take to arrest him.Under no lawful circumstances may he use CIA agents for killing. Surely, CIA agents can usedeadly force defensively to protect themselves and their assets, but they may not use itoffensively. Federal laws against murder apply to the president and to all federal agents andpersonnel in their official capacities, wherever they go on the planet.

20


21/50

Obama has argued that he can kill Americans whose deaths he believes will keep us all safer,without any due process whatsoever. No law authorizes that. His attorney general has arguedthat the presidents careful consideration of each target and the narrow use of deadly forceare an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. No court has ever approvedthat. And his national security adviser has argued that the use of drones is humane since theyare surgical and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect, as the folks who monitorall this say that 11 percent to 17 percent of the 2,300 drone-caused deaths have been those ofinnocent bystanders.

Did you consent to a government that can kill whom it wishes? How about one that playstricks on federal judges? How long will it be before the presidential killing comes home?

US senators propose assassination court to

screen drone targetsFebruary 10th 2013

It sounds like an Orwellian idea from a futuristic sci-fi movie. Government officials gather in asecret courtroom, poring over documents and weighing whether to approve the fly-by killingof a suspected terrorist.

If the judges say yes, the target dies. If not, the target lives.

But U.S. senators are now floating the idea of an assassination court as a way to rein in theever-expanding drone program a secretive operation that, as it is, sounds like thriller fiction,but isn't.

The idea was bandied about during Thursday's confirmation hearing for CIA director nominee

John Brennan, who fueled the talk by saying he thinks the concept is "worthy of discussion."The nominee, as a vocal supporter of the targeted-killing program, has come under scrutinyfor what some lawmakers see as the administration's unchecked power to kill, even if thetarget is an American citizen.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said aspart of an effort to regulate the killing, she wants to review proposals to create somethingsimilar to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which reviews requests for wiretapsagainst suspected foreign agents for drone strikes.

21


22/50

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, is pushing the idea the hardest.

According to his vision, the drone court would be an avenue for U.S. officials to argue insecret before a judge why an American citizen should be targeted for death. He said it wouldbe like "going to a court for a warrant" and proving probable cause.

Except in this case, the judge would be ruling not on a search warrant or a wiretap but amissile strike from thousands of feet in the air, and thousands of miles away.

"If you're planning a strike over a matter of days, weeks or months, there is an opportunity toat least go to some outside-of-the-Executive Branch body like the FISA court in a confidentialand top-secret way make the case that this American citizen is an enemy combatant," he said.

After questioning Brennan about the drone court idea Thursday, he followed up with a letterFriday to Feinstein and the committee's top Republican, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

He noted that the FISA court has 11 federal judges to review electronic surveillanceapplications, and said "such a model may be useful as we consider the debate over targetedstrikes."

He said an "outside judicial process" could help provide an "independent perspective" in thecase of Americans who become leaders with Al Qaeda.

Under the Obama administration, the American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, considered a top AlQaeda operative, became the first American successfully targeted for death under the droneprogram. Two weeks later, his 16-year-old son was also killed in a drone strike, in which theteen was described as collateral damage.

For critics of the drone program, though, the creation of a special court may not ease theirconcerns.

Jonathan Turley, a well-known legal scholar and professor at George Washington University,told FoxNews.com that congressional action is "clearly warranted."

"President Obama has become the president that Richard Nixon always wanted to be. In theface of an imperial president, it is Congress' duty under the Constitution to do whatever it canto check such an abuse of power," he said in an email.

However, Turley expressed concern that a new court would "legitimate the claim of inherentauthority by the president to kill citizens without charge or judicial review."

"A formal process, even if accepted by the White House, could be viewed as a concession thatsuch power exists," he said. "It would be a lethal version of FISA where constitutional

provisions are set aside in favor of a largely meaningless process of review."

Brennan on Thursday expressed a willingness to consider an assassination bureau, whilestressing that such a court would be different from anything else in existence since the dronestrikes, according to him, are only green-lighted to prevent an attack, and not to exactretribution for a prior attack.

22


23/50

"Our judicial tradition is that a court of law is used to determine one's guilt or innocence forpast actions, which is very different from the decisions that are made on the battlefield, aswell as actions that are taken against terrorists," he said. "Because none of those actions areto determine past guilt for those actions that they took. The decisions that are made are totake action so that we prevent a future action, so we protect American lives."

He said that is an "inherently Executive Branch function to determine," and that the actionsare taken only when "we believe that the intelligence base is so strong and the nature of thethreat is so grave and serious, as well as imminent, that we have no recourse except to takethis action that may involve a lethal strike."

King said his concern is that too much power is vested in the Executive Branch when it comesto targeted killings.

"I understand you can't have co-commanders in chief, but having the executive being theprosecutor, the judge, the jury and the executioner all in one is very contrary to the traditionsand the laws of this country," he said.

Obama plans to use military drones against American

journalists, freedom activists and critics of governmentFebruary 11th 2013

President Obama plans to use military drones in the skies over the United States toassassinate journalists, patriots and critics of his administration. That's the inescapableconclusion from the emerging pattern of evidence now publicly available keep reading fordetails.

Front and center in this pattern of evidence is the 16-page memo that was just released byObama's lawyers in the Department of Justice. This memo puts forth a"legal justification"forthe President to order the drone assassination of any American citizen he names anytime,anywhere, for any reason. This new power claimed by the President has no basis in federallaw or the Constitution. It is an invented power of absolute tyranny that puts the power todecide who lives and who dies in the hands of one man. This document essentiallylegalizesthe President acting as a serial murderer.

23
http://www.naturalnews.com/038969_drone_strikes_President_rule_of_law.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/038969_drone_strikes_President_rule_of_law.html


24/50

It is claimed that the purpose of this new power to simply name any American the Presidentdoesn't like and immediately have them struck by a Hellfire missile launched from a drone isdesigned to "protect America." Yet the 16-page memo that claims to justify all this wasintentionally written to include Americans on U.S. soil as potential targets.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano explained just a few days ago on Fox News:

"This 16-page white paper is written so vaguely that the logic from it could... permit thePresident to kill Americans here in the United States."

That's the whole point, actually. If Americans on U.S. soil were to be excluded from suchdrone assassinations, such language would have been made readily apparent in the memo.But no such language is found in the memo. In fact, the tone of the document quite clearlystates that the President has the authority to order drone killings of U.S. citizens anywhere inthe world, under any circumstances.

This legal manipulation even has U.S. Senators worried. Democrat Senator Patrick J Leahyand Senator Charles Grassley sent a letter to Obamaon Friday, stating, "The deliberate killingof a United States citizen pursuant to a targeted operation authorized or aided by ourgovernment raises significant constitutional and legal concerns."

That's the understatement of the year.

U.S. Senators are trying to create an "oversight committee" so that a few of them are part ofthe illegal, unconstitutional decision process of which Americans the U.S. government shouldmurder next. As Kurt Nimmo reports with InfoWars.com:

Feinstein has proposed "legislation to ensure that drone strikes are carried out in a mannerconsistent with our values, and the proposal to create an analogue of the Foreign IntelligenceSurveillance Court to review the conduct of such strikes," in other words a secret tribunal thatwill hand down kill orders for Americans the government believes are "suspected militants."

Ifdrones are to be unleashed under the values of Feinstein an outright traitorto the nationand a serial violator of the U.S. Constitution then God help us all. Remember, Feinstein is theSenator who has already said she wants all Americans to turn all their guns in. She literallywants the entire U.S. civilian population disarmed so that government has all the weapons,including drones which Feinstein wants flying over U.S. cities, ready to strike namedAmerican citizens at any moment.

The American "battlefield" doctrine and the NDAA

In defending the drone assassination powers of the President, you might hear language usedthat says drones will "only be used on the battlefield." That seems to imply they will only beused in the Middle East, right?

Wrong. The USA has been legally defined as the new "battlefield" by the NDAA. That's theNational Defense Authorization Act which also allows for the arrest and indefinite detention ofAmerican citizens without trial, without legal representation and even without them ever beingcharged.

24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMdT6h2hLjUhttp://www.naturalnews.com/Obama.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/Obama.htmlhttp://www.infowars.com/congress-prepares-to-kill-6th-amendment-with-secret-drone-court/http://www.naturalnews.com/drones.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTB_aXTCUshttp://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMdT6h2hLjUhttp://www.naturalnews.com/Obama.htmlhttp://www.infowars.com/congress-prepares-to-kill-6th-amendment-with-secret-drone-court/http://www.naturalnews.com/drones.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTB_aXTCUshttp://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.html


25/50

The USA is the new "battlefield," and when you combine the NDAA and the DOJ's new dronekilling justification memo, you now have the claimed legal framework for any American onU.S. soil to be arrested, detained, tortured or blown to bits without warning and without even asingle shred of evidence being presented against him.

Yes, this is America today. Right now.You are living under a military dictatorship and most ofyou don't even realize it yet. Even liberals and progressives are starting to wake up toObama's tyranny, by the way. On Democracy Now, Daniel Ellsberg recently describedObama's actions as a "systematic assault on the Constitution."

Who are the terrorists?

Of course, anyone who raises these points will be immediately dismissed with the claim thatall this new power in the hands of the President will only be used "against terrorists."

Okay, then who are the terrorists, exactly? It turns out they are YOU!As Judge Napolitano recently explained:

The (Janet Napolitano DHS) memorandum said that people who are pro-life, people whobelieve in the right to keep and bear arms, returning veterans, people who think the

government is too big and the IRS is too powerful, could be characterized as domesticterrorists. That could characterize two-thirds of the country.(Click here to see related video.)

Another DHS report named as terrorists anyone who opposes illegal immigration, abortion orfederal taxes.

The pieces of the puzzle

So now it all becomes clear:

1) The NDAA legalized the federal government arresting, detaining and torturing American

citizens if they were classified as "terrorists."

2) The DOJ drone-killing memo legalized the President murdering anyone he names by simplyclaimingthey might be associated with "terrorists."

3) The DHS announces that anyone who isn't an absolutely Big Government boot-licker andObama worshipperIS A TERRORIST.

And there you have it: The full circle of justification to use military drone strikes against U.S.citizens on U.S. soil. Simply call them terrorists, and the rest of the legal framework backs youup.

I repeat: All that is necessary to justify the murder ofAmerican citizens without trial is labelingthem "terrorists" even with no evidence to support such a claim. The drone killings require noevidence. They only require the signature of one man.

25
http://www.naturalnews.com/America.htmlhttp://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5/daniel_ellsberg_ndaa_indefinite_detention_provisionhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwJb5pbWhe4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwJb5pbWhe4http://www.wnd.com/2009/04/94803/http://www.wnd.com/2009/04/94803/http://www.naturalnews.com/American_citizens.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/America.htmlhttp://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5/daniel_ellsberg_ndaa_indefinite_detention_provisionhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwJb5pbWhe4http://www.wnd.com/2009/04/94803/http://www.wnd.com/2009/04/94803/http://www.naturalnews.com/American_citizens.html


26/50

Who is likely on the drone strike target list in the USA

So who is most likely to be assassinated by President Obama once drone strikes are fullyunleashed in the USA?

Journalists.

Political opponents.

Anti-government protesters. (One Hellfire missile takes 'em all out.)

Online activists.

Veterans. Gun owners and gun shops.

Constitutionalists and libertarians.

Drone strikes are completely silent because the Hellfire missiles arrive faster than the speedof sound. You don't even hear the missile until after the explosion. The blast radius of aHellfire missile is 15 - 20 meters, and everything inside that radius is completely obliterated.This is more than enough to destroy entire homes, apartments and office buildings, not tomention vehicles and even light bunkers.

World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah actually voiced his concern about Obama being

reelected, saying that he believed Obama would "kill journalists" if he won a second term.Farah is not being paranoid. He's right on the money with where this is going. Click here toread his article published right before the 2012 election.

Drones are weapons of tyranny

In the history of America, rifles are the weapons ofliberty and in any war limited to just riflesand similar weapons, the People will always achieve victory over tyranny.

But tyrannies tend to rise up when specialized, highly-complex weapons come onto the scene,creating an imbalance of military power that suppresses the People. Drones are that new

weapon: There is virtually no citizen defense against drones, and drones can strike targetsanyone in the country with zero warning. You do not get called to appear in court, you do notget arrested, and you do not receive a warning.You're simply murdered by the U.S. Presidentwithout warning and without a trial. That's the new America.

The cover story: Drone strikes that actually take out the homes of Obama's political enemiescan even be explained away as "bombings" using conventional explosives. A convenientcover story can keep drones out of the news, even while drone strikes are taking out

journalists, activists and critics of the criminal Obama regime.

You might wonder, then, what is the strategy for defending against drones? It all comes down

to men with rifles raiding drone airfields and taking them over. Once again, rifles become thesingle most important tool of resistance in the face of tyranny, which is exactly why thegovernment is right now desperately seeking to register and confiscate all rifles in the handsof U.S. citizens. The MQ-1C Warrior drone has an operational range of 675 miles, meaning thatdrone airfields must be relatively close to intended targets. The airfields are the weak link, andthis is what Americans must take back ifdrone mass murderis unleashed against Americancitizens (by any president, now or in the future).

26
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-2nd-term-war-on-domestic-opposition/http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-2nd-term-war-on-domestic-opposition/http://www.naturalnews.com/murder.htmlhttp://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-2nd-term-war-on-domestic-opposition/http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-2nd-term-war-on-domestic-opposition/http://www.naturalnews.com/murder.html


27/50

There are also some high-tech defenses against drones. Iran appears to have hacked a droneby feeding it false GPS signals, guiding it to land on an Iranian runway where it was then takeninto custody by the government there. This sort of GPS hacking appears to be relativelysimple to accomplish, but the technique has never been proven in an actual military conflict.

Another defense against drones is to stay on the move. Don't hole up in fixed locations forlong periods of time. Drone strikes are only effective if the intended target's location is knownwith certainty. In a resistance war against a tyrannical government, resistance forces will ofcourse remain very mobile and unpredictable in their locations and movements. This willcause the government to waste lots of Hellfire missiles blowing up empty houses and likelykilling the wrong people.

Every drone strike against U.S. targets will, of course, enrage the population even further,resulting in yet another mass wave of recruitment into the resistance. The more AmericansObama (or another president) kills with drones, the more powerful the resistance becomes.This spiral continues until there is either a violent armed overthrow of the government or theentire resistance movement is mass murdered by the government itself. In the case of thelatter, that's how we end up with Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other dictatorial tyrants who assumepower in the aftermath of blood running in the streets.

Stop being so naive this is happening NOW!If you think any of this seems outlandish, you aren't paying attention. The 16-page droneassassination memo has already been published. The NDAA is federal law. The DHS memosare real. All of us who question government, who own firearms, and who believe in the Bill ofRights have already been named terrorists.

The stage is being set to wage an all-out war with the American people. That's the reason DHShas purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammo. It's the reason DHS is buying 7,000 full-autoassault rifles. All these weapons and ammo are for exclusive use inside the United States ofAmerica, on U.S. soil.

This is why thousands of bulletproof roadside checkpoints have been purchased by DHS. It'swhy steel cable dividers are being installed on highways, so that you can't turn around whenapproaching a TSA checkpoint. This is why talk of shooting gun owners is openly toleratedand even encouraged in the mainstream media and on social networks.

We are witnessing a full-on ramping up toward total war with the American people. This warwill be caused (false-flagged) by the government itself, and it will be waged on U.S. soil, usingdrone assassinations, nationwide gun confiscation, FEMA camps and of course a declarationof Martial Law to justify it all.

The end game is a complete takeover of America by socialist / communist / fascist forces andthe outright abolition of liberties and firearms in the hands of citizens. America is scheduledfor termination, and people like Obama have been placed in power precisely because he canfool enough people for a sufficient amount of time to get this plan underway without popularresistance. Obama is seductive and hypnotic, so his followers will think he's helping Americaeven while he's actually destroying it by design.

27
http://www.naturalnews.com/038407_ammunition_homeland_security_civil_war.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/038844_DHS_assault_weapons_documents.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/038844_DHS_assault_weapons_documents.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/035607_government_checkpoints_Martial_Law.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/038407_ammunition_homeland_security_civil_war.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/038844_DHS_assault_weapons_documents.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/038844_DHS_assault_weapons_documents.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/035607_government_checkpoints_Martial_Law.html


28/50

Drones are terminators in the sky, controlled by one man a tyrant who sits in the Oval Officeand respects no boundaries of either the Constitution or federal law. He makes law up as hegoes along, betraying his oath of office and violating the very tenants of justice upon whichthis country was founded.

Obama is a traitor to America and a danger to us all. For the sake of America's future, he mustbe impeached, thrown out of office and replaced with a President who actually upholds theConstitution and respects the laws of the land.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5/daniel_ellsberg_ndaa_indefinite_...

http://www.infowars.com/it-has-happened-here/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwJb5pbWhe4

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-2nd-term-war-on-domestic-opposition...

Obamas Gone Jack Bauer On Us

February 12th

2013

The Obama administration seems to have gone Jack Bauer on us, which would be okay if wewere just talking about non-American enemy combatants on some far-flung battlefield.

It seems the administration danced its way around case law and the Constitution in an attempt

to justify the assassination of three American citizens it refuses to acknowledge it had anypart of, post execution. In September 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki, the mastermind behind the failedDecember 25,

Documents

The Murder of Americans-Existence of Secret Kill Lists Now Admitted by Lawless White House.doc